Although Damm gave me a heading, I still wasn’t seeing the airport. “Keep going. You see that house and workshop on the top of the hill?” Yes, I do. “OK, the dirt strip is just to the west of that, aligned roughly east-west.” I kept looking to where the elevation appeared to flatten slightly, trying my best to pick out anything that looked like an airport. No luck.

Sensing my frustration, Damm helped: “You’re looking in the wrong place. See that hill?” I see Damm’s finger over my left shoulder. “That’s the runway.”

For a moment, I stopped giving the new CubCrafters UL bushplane much in the way of direction as the tumblers fell into place, and I realized that after about 30 minutes of flying, I’d be putting the company’s latest offering down on a “runway” that most pilots would try to avoid even after a full-blown engine failure.

You bush pilots out there know what happens next. The “sight picture” is really different when landing on a significant grade, making it tough to judge the roundout point. After a few circuits, I started to get the idea, understanding better each time how to judge speed, altitude, and descent rate. I really couldn’t tell you what the airspeed was—my focus was totally outside. Each landing was followed by a short taxi down the hill and then an uphill takeoff, despite the wind being calm.

Damm knew how to highlight the UL’s potential here—with two of us and nearly full fuel, the Carbon Cub handled the uphill departure with ease, climbing comfortably faster than the terrain without coming close to hanging the thing on the prop. That’s what a lot of wing, nearly 180 square feet of it, will do for you.

Horsepower helps too, and that’s perhaps the most surprising aspect of the Carbon Cub UL. In a break from the company’s long-standing adherence to Cub-style norms, the motivator up front isn’t the familiar Lycoming or Titan air-cooled engine. Instead, it’s the newest Rotax, the turbocharged, intercooled, 160 hp 916.

Why the change, and why now?

“We needed an airplane for international markets,” Damm said. “You have to have an airplane that runs on autogas. Avgas is available here, but in some places in the world, it simply isn’t. We also wanted an airplane that fit into the UL category around the world.”

• READ MORE: CubCrafters Unveils Carbon Cub UL

While the U.S. has light sport aircraft (LSA) for now—and Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) for the near future—other aviation authorities have different requirements for “lightweight” aircraft. In many other nations, what is broadly referred to as the UL (or ultralight) category is not the same as our version. Most countries stick to the 600-kilogram weight limit (essentially the same as our 1,320-pound limit for LSAs on wheels), though there are exceptions that go as high as 700 kg (1,543 pounds).

It’s true that other CubCrafters models fit into the LSA weight limits, but what makes the new UL compelling for the company is the multifuel (avgas and 94-octane autogas) capability of the Rotax. In the time since the airplane was introduced at Sun ’n Fun 2023, market response has proven the Rotax to be a good choice, creating new interest in the brand.

No Small Project

Still, this was not a small engineering project. CubCrafters had assistance from Rotax, but the grunt work was committed at the company’s sprawling Yakima facility, where it builds three distinct lines of modern Cub-style airplanes, offers a builder-assist program for those who want to create their own, and even provides service and repair.

The good news is the liquid-cooled Rotax 916 is close enough in shape to the legacy engines that the packaging is almost self-starting. Luckily, the propeller is in the same place as with the Lycomings. But everything from there to the firewall is new and different, a process still ongoing when I flew the prototype UL.

• READ MORE: CubCrafters Delivers 1,000th Aircraft

Under the spinner, the opening that normally feeds the airbox or carburetor in a Lycoming installation ducts air to the oil cooler. In the copilot-side cheek, a splitter pulls incoming air back and toward the standard intercooler. Air entering the other side of the split and the pilot-side opening are led back to a pair of coolant radiators. A duct integrated with the top of the cowling helps feed a tall radiator just behind the engine while another is positioned along the lower surface of the cowling in the exit-air path.

This arrangement is very likely to change. My flight in the airplane, on a not particularly warm day, began to stress the coolant temperatures, something CubCrafters has seen in its testing and is working to remedy as R&D continues.

On the firewall is the Rotax-supplied, power-distribution system that manages the dual engine control units (ECUs) that, in turn, control fuel injection, ignition, and wastegate functions. That’s right, the 916 iS, like its nonturbocharged 912 iS brethren, is an electronic engine, with automotive-style fuel injection and ignition. It’s not a truly fly-by-wire system since the throttle is still mechanically linked to the pilot’s left hand, but the turbo system is managed by the ECU. Rotax’s engine-management technology is well proven in the 912 iS.

The engine itself helps the overall goal of weight reduction. At just under 200 pounds, the Rotax 916 iS is 40-70 pounds lighter than the CC340 engine offered in the middle-range and LSA-qualified CubCrafters mod-els. In addition, CubCrafters put the UL on a strict diet, with a lighter composite cowling (made out of pre-pregmaterial that’s lighter), titanium (instead of steel) landing-gear legs, and titanium firewall.

“Our goal is to have the UL, at 1,320 pounds maximum gross weight, have enough useful load for a 200-pound pilot, 120-pound passenger, 20 gallons of fuel, and 20 pounds of baggage,” said Damm.

If you’ve done the math, that’s an empty weight of 860 pounds, which is 32 pounds lighter than the listed spec for the Carbon Cub SS on which the UL is based.

Pilots familiar with the Rotax 900-series engine and, in particular, the turbocharged 915 iS or nonturbo 912 iS will be immediately comfortable in the Carbon Cub UL. The UL prototype uses the smaller SS-style instrument panel that, in this case, carries a compact 7-inch Garmin G3X Touch main display with an RS Flight Systems EMU (engine monitoring unit) display just to the left. It reveals crucial engine information such as manifold pressure, rpm, oil pressure and temp, coolant temp, fuel pressure and flow, total fuel quantity, and system voltage. It also shows throttle “percentage” and the status of Lanes A and B.

In the parlance of Rotax’s dual-channel ECU, “lane” refers to each leg of the parallel computing system. The engine can run on either but typically has Lane A running the show with Lane B humming along in the background, a faithful understudy ready to step in should the lead actor stumble off the stage. (By accident, of course.) You’re aware of the ECU status on both the EMU display and through two big annunciators that warn of a fault with either lane. It’s different from conventional piston aircraft but totally learnable.

Lined up on the runway, you can slide the throttle forward smoothly but quickly. From there, the Rotax leans into the job with real vigor and no apparent throttle lag or turbo surge. It accelerates to flying speed with the customary one notch of flaps in less than four seconds and just seems to levitate. Once rotated, and if you have no need to clear terrain, you can let the nose settle not far above the horizon and enjoy the view of the runway falling away from you. In no way did the UL feel like it was down on power compared to the midrange Carbon Cubs.

In deference to the early stage of the UL’s cooling system, we pulled back to “95 percent throttle,” which is how Rotax describes engine power settings through the instruments even if the percentage isn’t always exactly related to maximum power. We dropped the nose to attain

78 knots indicated (90 mph) and 500 fpm in the climb, where the coolant stabilized at 231 degrees Fahrenheit and the oil temp at 190 degrees. At this setting, the engine is pulling 37 inches of manifold pressure at 4,800 engine rpm.

• READ MORE: CubCrafters Announces Closing of Public Stock Offering

Later in the flight, we tested a full-power V_Y climb (61 kias, 70 mph) where we recorded 1,100 fpm. Fuel flow is 10.3 gallons per hour (gph) at 100 percent throttle. At V_X, the airplane is substantially nose up to 46 kias (53 mph) and still climbing better than 800 fpm. We followed that with a quick high-speed cruise check.

At 98 percent throttle, the 916 is happily churning away at 42 inches and 5,400 rpm, burning 9.9 gph. At 4,900 feet msl, we saw 115 ktas (132 mph true). I didn’t attempt to check the calibration of the pitot-static system for a couple of reasons. First, we were at a not ideal altitude for the turbo Rotax, which can produce maximum power to 15,000 feet and maximum-cruise power to 23,000 feet. Second, several aspects of the CarbonCub UL’s cooling system will change between now and when you can buy one, so high-cruise data is more likely to change than not.

A more realistic cruise speed would be 95 percent throttle and 6.4 gph, giving 104 ktas (120 mph true). Even more economical are the results at 94 percent throttle, where the UL trots along at 89 ktas (102 mph true) on 4.9 gph. To get that, the Rotax is pulling 32 inches at 4,700 rpm. Notable in this case is the engine’s smoothness and complete predictability with power changes. It moves from one thrust level to the next seamlessly.

Cub-Like Characteristics

Yes, there is a whole airplane behind the firewall, and it’s a known quantity in the Cub world. From a handling standpoint, the Carbon Cub UL is a tiny bit contradictory. It has the low-speed handling you want, tons of lift, and is capable of climb gradients to make your passengers whoop. (Best to warn them first.) These are the vaunted Cub-like characteristics that go into making it a supremely good short-field machine.

With practice, you could drop it in over a line of trees and have it stopped in just a few hundred feet. You’ll need to be on your game and willing to fly it slowly, with the angle-of-attack system beeping in your ear, but the airplane gives you tons of warning to the unloaded stall and recovers quickly. In fact, to get a serious break at altitude requires very aggressive control inputs.

But the UL also has some strong big airplane character. For one, it’s very strongly pitch stable, sticking to trimmed speed tenaciously. It’s a “rudder airplane” but not stupendously so, thus it won’t take long to get the hang of it. My sole complaint comes only because I have time in the other Carbon Cub models. For reasons of weight savings, the UL uses the earlier control system, which lacks the pleasurable lightness of the G-series flight controls found on the EX/FX and X/NX models.

In my world, where pilots of the Van’s RV are accustomed to fingertip-light controls, the Carbon Cub feels a tad stiff. It’s an airplane that wants all your fingers on the stick, but that payback is a strong sense of stability and excellent pre-stall feedback.

Back to the business side of things. CubCrafters feels strongly that its UL has worldwide potential. Since starting the program with Rotax more than two years ago, it launched the airplane, continued R&D work, and has begun building half a dozen examples as dealer demo/market survey aircraft. That’s not likely to be the final design, either.

“We like to get customers into the airplane to see what they like and don’t like,” said Damm. “And then we can iterate the design from there.”

The design should get locked in by mid-2024, with the manufacturing team refining its part of the process through the end of the year. Prices have not been set but will probably be closer to the $312,000 of the EX-3/FX-3 series than the current $237,000 of the Carbon Cub SS.

The airplane on these pages has been re-covered in the Oratex system, which is a “prepainted” concept that requires no solvents, filler, or paint after application, and then sent over to Europe for its wintertime tour. CubCrafters is trying the Oratex for that market in part because the system is lighter. But it’s also emblematic of the company’s approach to the legendary Cub design: Keep the traditional elements, but continue to try new things. New materials (hence the “carbon” in the Carbon Cub name) and even new engines.

What the Carbon Cub UL shows is that innovation can keep an airplane style so rooted in our history that it might as well have been conceived by the Wright brothers—still amazingly relevant a quarter of the way through the 21st century.

Build It Yourself

CubCrafters is unique in aviation in that it sells FAA-certified completed airplanes, provides airframe kits into the homebuilt world, and also offers a builder-assist program that blurs the lines between factory- and individual-built aircraft. To be licensed as an experimental/amateur-built aircraft, there has to be an individual builder (or group) on the paperwork who has convinced either the FAA or a representative that they’ve completed a “majority” of the work. This is colloquially known as the “51 percent rule.”

Defining what makes up a “majority” of the work is made easier by an FAA-accepted checklist of typical build tasks, including both assembly and fabrication. This list of tasks, used by all the popular builder-assist programs, helps define what the builder needs to do and what the factory is allowed to complete.

Typically, the builder is given more assembly tasks than raw fabrication because the company selling the kit is usually better at making the parts than a first-time builder. It’s important to understand that this checklist doesn’t document every single part or assembly but breaks it down into major categories—wing ribs, main spar, tail feathers, etc. What’s more, it doesn’t say how many of those things a builder has to do, so “fabricating” one wing rib gives the builder credit for all of them.

For CubCrafters, the builder-assist program is upside down from most. It’s structured as two weeklong visits to the Yakima, Washington, factory, the first totally focused on fabrication. Working alongside the team that creates the very same parts for production airplanes, the amateur builder participates in key processes that very strategically ticks all the boxes on the checklist. I have so far spent the first week helping to build one of the demonstrator Carbon Cub ULs and am due to return this spring for the second half of the project, which focuses more on assembly and inspection.

But for the first part, it’s a matter of using a massive hydraulic press to create wing ribs from accurately CNC-cut aluminum, helping to place sections of steel tube into a jig for a really good company-paid welder to assemble, forming key elements of the tail structure and assisting and helping to lay out pieces of fiberglass into the same molds used for the certified aircraft. (It’s worth noting that the amateur-built and certified parts are tracked and kept entirely separate, even as the raw materials themselves are exactly the same.)

The builder-assist program doesn’t really save money on the airplane, but it does give the owner a sense of accomplishment and a better understanding of what goes into it. CubCrafters does discourage builders from applying for a repairman certificate (available to homebuilders but only for their specific airframe). But the remaining benefit is the ability to make modifications later without needing an STC or other means of compliance. The builder in the program alongside me said this was the very reason he chose the builder-assist path.

CubCrafters Carbon Cub UL Cockpit at a Glance

A) Rotax’s most recent engines all have electronic ignition and fuel injection. These warning lights tell you if one of the parallel, redundant ECUs has a fault.

B) The engine monitor keeps the pilot in the loop.

C) To keep weight down, the prototype Carbon Cub UL uses Garmin’s smaller G3X Touch EFIS.

D) A special multifunction “mag” switch controls engine start and allows sequential testing of the redundant engine controls.

E) The Carbon Cub UL features a simple all-metal stick topped by a pitch-trim switch which seems to say everything about the CubCrafters no-nonsense approach.

CubCrafters Carbon Cub UL Specs

Price, as tested: Not available

Engine: Rotax 916 iS

Propeller: E-Props, three-blade, fixed pitch

Horsepower: 160 for takeoff, 137 max continuous

Seats: 2

Length: 23 ft., 3 in.

Height: 8 ft., 4 in.

Wingspan: 34 ft., 3 in.

Wing Area: 179 sq. ft.

Wing Loading: 7.37 lbs./sq. ft.

Power Loading: 8.25 lbs./hp

Cabin Width: 30 in.

Cabin Height: 52 in.

Max Takeoff Weight: 1,320 lbs.

Standard Empty Weight: 860 lbs. (est.)

Max Baggage: 200 lbs.

Useful Load: 460 lbs.

Max Usable Fuel: 24 gal.

Service Ceiling: TBD

Max Rate of Climb: MTOW, ISA, SL: TBD

Cruise Speed at 90% Power: TBD

Max Cruise Speed: TBD

Max Range: TBD

Stall Speed, Flaps Up: NA

Stall Speed, Full Flaps: 32 mph

Takeoff: 60 ft.

Landing: 110 ft.

This feature first appeared in the April 2024/Issue 947 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Latest CubCrafters Design Looks Back and Ahead appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The wide world of aircraft is now open to you, but what can you actually fly? Part of being a good pilot is recognizing that sometimes our eyes are bigger than our skill set. While hopping into a high-performance World War II warbird is a great goal, it is probably not the thing to do while waiting for the ink to dry on that new certificate.

That said, there will be a learning curve with any new-to-you model—and the possibilities are nearly limitless. Here are a few options to get you started that you can either step into right away or require just a few hours of further training.

Ultra-Modern: Cirrus SR22

If what turns your head is a sophisticated aircraft with advanced avionics, comfortable cockpit, and safety features such as a whole-airframe parachute, consider the Cirrus SR22 series. It may not be an entirely new model for everyone, given that it does see use in the training environment. However, between the depth of available features and its capabilities, there’s plenty of room for even more advanced pilots to expand their skill sets to take better advantage of all the model has to offer.

The latest version of the nonturbocharged SR22, the recently unveiled G7, boasts a top cruise speed of 181 knots, 1,169 nm range, and useful load of 1,326 pounds. Capable of seating up to five, it comes equipped with the G3000-esque Perspective Touch+ by Garmin avionics suite and offers an array of advanced features, including crew alerting system (CAS) linked checklists and taxiway routing. The SR22 is also a capable IFR machine, so becoming familiar with the model could be a particularly good option if you’re looking toward your next rating.

• READ MORE: This 2017 Cirrus SR22T Is a High-Performance, Parachute-Protected ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick

Keep in mind that there can be a lot of variation within a model type. If you’ve flown an early generation SR22 in training, you could find yourself in for a few surprises when you get into the cockpit of a newer version like the G7—or vice versa. This holds true for any model that has seen updates over multiple production cycles, so check that you are familiar with the specific configuration of the version you’re getting ready to fly well before takeoff.

In general, the SR22 is faster than many trainers and a bit less forgiving than something like a Cessna 172, particularly when it comes to approach and landing speeds. If you’re stepping up from a slower airplane, beware of falling behind the aircraft.

To act as PIC, you will need a high-performance endorsement: typically five to 10 hours of additional training with the instructor signing you off once they feel you are competent. Insurance requirements will likely dictate the final amount.

As a side note, if you’re going all-in and buying a used Cirrus rather than renting, the company offers up to three days of instruction with one of its authorized training partners free of charge via the Cirrus Embark program. Free transition training with the experts is hard to come by and extraordinarily valuable, so don’t miss out.

Vintage: Piper J-3 Cub

Is there anything more iconic in general aviation than a little yellow Piper J-3 Cub? If you’re looking to get places quickly, overcoming all inclement weather, and staying aloft for as long as biology allows, move along. This isn’t the one for you.

But if what you want is a nostalgic meander through beautiful VFR days, honing your stick-and-rudder skills while feeling the wind in your hair, the Cub can be a great model to turn to. Introduced in 1937, the two-seat J-3 is among the most recognizable models around with nearly 20,000 produced and a stock paint job so identifiable that the color came to be called “Cub Yellow.”

• READ MORE: This 1947 Piper J-3 Cub Is a Historic, Beloved ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick

Turning to the practicalities, if you don’t already have one, you will need a tailwheel endorsement to fly a J-3. It takes a rough average of 10 hours to complete but will put an array of interesting aircraft within your scope. Be warned: It will not be like flying a tricycle-gear trainer. Tailwheel aircraft have their own traps waiting for the unwary pilot—a much stronger predilection for ground loops, for example—so find a good instructor and pay close attention to the differences in handling characteristics. That said, with solid instruction flying a Cub is well within reach for a newer private pilot.

Pay attention to loading once you’re cleared to go up on your own. The Cub is little and light—two good-sized people can overload it, and it’s just not built for carrying much cargo. The stock 1947 version is powered by a 65 hp Continental engine (the earliest model had just 40 hp), offering a cruise speed of around 65 knots, 191 nm range, and useful load of 455 pounds.

To be fair, the J-3 is also not going to win any awards for cabin comfort. What it has, though, is style and history. The Cub is also a reasonable place to start if you’re looking to fly more complicated vintage aircraft in the future.

Solid Performance: Cessna 172 Skyhawk

Sometimes it just isn’t worth messing with a good thing. The Cessna 172 Skyhawk is a reliable, stable performer with a long history of taking pilots where they need to go. It is easy to fly, easy to land, and capable of a little bit of everything. That’s why it remains such a popular all-around trainer.

Alongside its general cabin comfort, those same characteristics make it a great option for new private pilots. In addition to being familiar to many, it requires no further endorsements or ratings and keeps to speeds common to other ab initio training aircraft—meaning timing in the cockpit will likely be similar even if you learned in something else. Furthermore, if you’re going to be renting, they’re easy to find pretty much anywhere.

• READ MORE: This 1968 Cessna 172 Skyhawk Is an All-Around Capable ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick

Like many of the other aircraft discussed, there is a lot of variation in 172 models even when only considering stock versions. Get to know the specific model you’ll be flying. Among other examples—and it probably goes without saying at this point—if you trained on one type of avionics (i.e. glass vs. analog gauges or Garmin flight deck vs. Avidyne), plopping yourself down in front of another without someone to teach you best practices and pitfalls is, quite frankly, a terrible idea. If what’s available to you is different in any significant way than what you trained on, grab a qualified instructor and log some learning time before heading out on your own.

The latest Skyhawk model has a top cruise speed of 124 knots, range of 640 nm, and useful load of 878 pounds. It comes equipped with Garmin G1000 NXi avionics and can seat the pilot plus three passengers. While it may seem too plain for some—it isn’t the fastest, leggiest, or tech-iest for sure—there’s no reason not to love a jack-of-all trades aircraft like the 172.

On the Water: ICON A5

If you are looking to head toward the water with your new certificate, it is worth taking a look at the ICON A5 amphibious light sport aircraft (LSA). Designed with recreational aviation in mind, it aims to provide a simple, fun flying experience even for pilots new to seaplanes. It comes with many safety features, including a whole-airframe parachute.

As of December when the FAA granted it type certification in the primary category, the two-seat ICON A5 is available in certified and special light sport aircraft (S-LSA) versions. Both have a top speed of 95 knots, a 427 nm range, and a useful load of 430 pounds. Certified and S-LSA A5s are powered by the fuel-injected Rotax 912iS engine and come equipped with the Garmin aera 796.

• READ MORE: This 2017 ICON A5 Is a Fun-Loving Amphibian ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick

When acting as PIC, the primary difference between the two versions is what you are required to have to fly one. To operate the certified edition in the U.S., you will need a private pilot certificate and seaplane rating. However, the S-LSA model, which ICON began delivering to customers in 2017, will continue to require a sport pilot certificate with a seaplane endorsement. Make sure you know what you need to legally fly the model in front of you.

If a seaplane rating or endorsement is all that stands in your way, the time frame for getting one tends to be about the same as the tailwheel endorsement: typically five to 10 hours of dedicated instruction, with the bar being when the instructor feels you are demonstrating proficiency.

Like most seaplane models, it can be quite difficult to find an A5 to rent. However, if you’re in the market for your own aircraft or one is available to you, it makes for a good launch into the world of amphibious aircraft.

Jet-A Traveler: Diamond DA40 NG

The four-seat Diamond DA40 NG has made a name for itself as a sleek, efficient, and easy-to-fly option for everyone from students to experienced IFR pilots. Its Austro AE 300 engine burns jet-A, making it a great entry-level choice for pilots looking to fly cross-country and/or in areas where avgas isn’t readily available. It is worth noting that the NG’s counterpart, the avgas-burning DA40 XLT, is a significantly different airplane, though worthy of consideration in its own right.

Along with offering great visibility through the bubble canopy, the DA40 NG is a comfortable cross-country machine with good range and reasonable speed for its type. As with the 172, no additional ratings or endorsements are needed to fly one. Once introductory flights are complete and you are comfortable with the aircraft, you’re good to go.

• READ MORE: The Diamond Aircraft Story Continues to Evolve

The newest version of the DA40 NG sports a top cruise speed of 154 knots, 934 nm range, and useful load of 897 pounds. Notably, its fuel consumption comes in at just 5.1 gallons per hour. On the avionics side, it is equipped with the Garmin G1000 NXi flight deck.

In addition to its range, the fuel burn in particular makes the DA40 NG an attractive choice for a new private pilot looking to go places. It can travel a long way on much less than many of its competitors. Another point in the model’s favor is the cockpit noise…or lack thereof. The diesel engine runs on the quieter side.

The DA40 NG is a well-behaved flyer, so transitioning to one shouldn’t be too complicated for most—assuming you didn’t learn to fly in one in the first place.

Fair Winds, Clear Skies

There are a nearly endless number of aircraft models out there, with pathways available straight to the left seats of a great many. While it may take step-ups, additional ratings, or endorsements, make a plan, get the training, and go for your dream airplane.

Who knows? You may even fall in love with a few others along the way.

This feature first appeared in the March 2024/Issue 946 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Dream Aircraft: What Can You Fly? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In contrast, all light sport aircraft (LSA), experimental amateur-built airplanes, and warbirds are issued special certificates. In my view, the rule can be divided into two main parts: airplane descriptions and capabilities, and pilot certificates, technician privileges, and operating limitations. In short, airplanes or people.

For airplanes, the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) felt like Christmas in July, granting many capabilities industry and pilot member organizations had sought over some years of negotiation. The people part describes who gets to fly and maintain these MOSAIC LSAs and under what rules. This latter section inspired greater concern.

Airplanes: What We Gained

Here’s the list of what FAA offered and how each changed:

Gross weight: LSAs have been limited to 1,320 pounds (land) or 1,430 pounds (water). Under MOSAIC, the weight limit is removed and clean stall constrains size so the aircraft remains what FAA sought: those “easy to fly, operate, and maintain.” It is expected that weight can rise to 3,000 pounds depending on the design.

Stall speed: Presently, LSAs cannot stall faster than 45 knots. This will be raised 20 percent to 54 knots, but this is clean stall, the purpose of which is to limit aircraft size and difficulty. It has no relation to landing speed or slow-flight qualities. This more than doubled the potential size, hence a new term, “MOSAIC LSA.”

Four seats: LSAs are presently limited by definition to two seats. This rises to four in a MOSAIC LSA, but if operated by someone using sport pilot certificate privileges, then only one passenger can be carried. A private certificate with medical may fill all four seats, assuming weight and balance allows.

Retractable gear: Light sport aircraft have been fixed gear only, except for amphibious models. Now any MOSAIC LSA can be retractable. Several imported LSAs already offer retractable options in other countries.

Adjustable prop: LSAs were allowed only ground-adjustable props. Now a MOSAIC LSA can have an in-flight adjustable prop. Such equipment on similar aircraft is common in other countries.

250 knot max speed: An LSA was limited by definition to 120 knots at full power. Now the speed limit matches all other aircraft below 10,000 feet: 250 knots. No one expected such a large expansion, but now retractable and adjustable props make more sense.

Rotary expansion: After 20 years of waiting, fully built gyroplanes will be allowed. That followed years of advocacy effort, but when the opposition finally yielded, the FAA also granted helicopters.

Electric or hybrid: Because the FAA did not want turbine LSAs in 2004, it specified reciprocating engines, unintentionally knocking out electric motors that few were considering at the time. In fixing the definition to allow electric, the agency will also permit hybrids. Examples are already flying in Europe.

Turbine: Perhaps turbine engines were harder to operate 20 years ago when LSA were defined, but today they are seen as simpler, and the FAA will allow them. Turbine-powered MOSAIC LSA candidates are already flying in Europe.

Multiple engines/motors: The LSA has been limited to a single engine by definition. That constraint is removed, although no language was given to address how the pilot qualifies.

Aerial work: The Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA) lobbied for MOSAIC LSAs to be permitted to do forms of aerial work, although not passenger or cargo hauling. The FAA has granted this opportunity to the manufacturers, which can specify what operations they will permit. A commercial pilot certificate will be required.

One downside to all these goodies? Each will increase the price. The good news? Present-day LSAs offer lower prices and have proven enjoyable and dependable. Many LSAs are fine as they are and have no need to change.

A lot of LSA producers already meet higher weights in other countries where permitted. They are merely reduced on paper to meet U.S. standards. It should be straightforward for them to redeclare meeting all MOSAIC-level ASTM standards to qualify for higher weights.

The only question is how far backward compatible they can go for aircraft in the field over which they have had no control for some time. It’s an industry question to resolve, and it will swiftly be handled to aid sales.

People and Areas of Concern

Medicals: Lots of questions surround one of the principal benefits of LSA operation: the lack of requirement for an aviation medical if operating as a sport pilot. More specifically, pilots want to fly larger aircraft using these privileges, meaning no medical certificate, or BasicMed, instead using the driver’s license as evidence of their medical fitness.

To keep within their budget, many pilots wish to buy (or keep flying) legacy GA aircraft such as the Cessna 150, 172, 177, and some 182s, plus certain Pipers, Diamonds, Champions, or other brands. Many of the latter aircraft are too heavy to allow such privilege today. MOSAIC appears to change that, but without presenting compelling evidence that possession of a medical assures a flight proceeds safely, the FAA nonetheless clings to this premise. Many assert the occurrence of medical problems sufficient to upset a flight or cause an accident are incredibly small in number.

Stall speed: Most NPRM readers agree that it was a worthy solution to use 54 knots clean stall as a means to limit the size of the airplane and to keep it within the FAA’s mantra of LSAs being “easy to fly, operate, and maintain.”

However, many respondents note that adding just a couple knots to that limit will allow several more airplanes that some wish to buy and fly under MOSAIC rules. Note that the 54-knot reference is not related to landing speeds or slow flight, where lift-enhancing devices like flaps would normally be used.

Some pilots asked if adding vortex generators could reduce stall speed enough to qualify. The problem lies in proving a slower stall speed was achieved. Stall (V_S1) printed in the POH will be the standard about compliance.

Several pilots have complained about use of calibrated versus indicated airspeed for the stall limit, but this is another matter that might be clarified after the comment period.

Endorsements: One of the significant lessons learned in 20 years of pilots operating LSAs is the so-called magic of endorsements. Instead of asking pilots to receive training, take a knowledge test and possibly an oral exam, followed by a practical flight test, they can just go get trained for added skills from an instructor who then endorses their logbook accordingly, and they’re good to go. This puts a significant burden on flight instructors to do their jobs well, but that’s already the situation.

The NPRM already refers to the use of endorsements for retractable gear training or adjustable prop training, and many believe that expanding endorsements to all privileges described in the MOSAIC proposal has merit.

Noise: For the first time, the NPRM introduced noise requirements that encompass several pages. Coincidentally, the LSA sector is already one of the quietest in the airborne fleet.

This is partly because of European noise regulations that have been in place for a long time, motivating quieter engine and exhaust system development. However, LSAs are also quieter because the powerplants are modern, thanks to the faster approval process implied by industry consensus standards.

The industry was not pleased about the noise proposal, as these requirements add burden without identifiable benefit. Nonetheless, the situation might be handled through the ASTM process more quickly and still satisfy political demands.

Night: MOSAIC’s language invigorated many readers when the NPRM expressed support for a sport pilot to fly at night—with proper training and a logbook endorsement. Then the proposal refers to other FAA regulations that require BasicMed or a medical. If you must have a medical, you are not exercising the central privilege of a sport pilot. Why suggest that a sport pilot can do things that are blocked by other regulations? This conflict should be resolved.

This is one of several aspects of the NPRM that many describe as “inconsistencies,” where one part of MOSAIC appears to restrict another part, often for unclear reasons. Such observations lead many to declare the NPRM looks “rushed to market.” Hopefully, most problems can be addressed in the post-comment period.

When surveyed about why night privileges are valued, most pilots wanted to be able to complete a cross-country flight with a landing after dark.

IFR/IMC: Contrary to what many think, the FAA has never prohibited LSAs from IFR/IMC operation. It is the lack of an ASTM standard to which manufacturers can declare compliance that prevents such sales. (Some special LSA owners elect a change to experimental LSA status and can then file IFR, assuming they have a rating, are current, and the airplane is properly equipped.)

However, as with night operations, many LSA owners report higher-level pilot certificates often including instrument ratings, and they would like to be able to use their LSAs to get through a thin cloud layer.

Maintenance and TBOs: The maintenance community has found several objections within the NPRM. It appears that changes could cause a loss of privilege for LSA owners who have taken training to perform basic maintenance on their own LSAs.

In addition to altering the privileges of light sport repairman mechanic (LSRM) certificate holders, MOSAIC adds capabilities such as electric propulsion, hybrid, turbine, and powered-lift devices, which leaves the mechanic-training industry guessing where to start. Some organizations wonder if it’s worth the investment to create appropriate courses with uncertain privilege at the end.

Indeed, eight training organizations suggested they would petition for an extension to the comment period. It was successful, so the extension will delay the expected arrival of the finished MOSAIC regulation. Absent any extension, the FAA has repeatedly said 16 months were needed, equating to the end of 2024 or early 2025.

One group creatively suggested using add-on training modules to solve the problem in much the same way that endorsements can be used to solve pilot training enhancements.

Lack of sector expertise: The FAA knows a great deal about conventional, three-axis airplanes but far less about so-called “alternative LSAs.” For machines that use different control systems or operate substantially differently than airplanes—weight shift and powered parachutes come to mind—some industry experts believe a better system is to authorize an industry organization to manage these sectors. This has been common throughout Europe for many years and could work well in the U.S.

In a document of its size, some errors will arise and some clarifications will be needed. It is only a proposal after all. Pilots can comment on certain aspects but will have little idea how the FAA can or will solve various points, even if they offer solutions.

This frustrates some readers and can cause uncertainty about a pending or planned airplane purchase. In turn, purchase-decision delays frustrate airplane manufacturers. That’s the precarious terrain surrounding new regulations. Such comments on regulation are part of the American way, where the citizens can be part of the process. Here’s your chance to speak and be heard.

This column first appeared in the November 2023/Issue 943 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Pilots Have Questions When It Comes to MOSAIC appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Doroni Aerospace on Friday revealed the sleek-looking H1-X: a two-seat electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) model designed for personal transportation. The company anticipates the first H1-X test flight by the end of 2024.

Doroni could certify the tandem wing design as a light sport aircraft (LSA) under the FAA’s MOSAIC proposal, which would raise the weight limit on such aircraft from 1,320 pounds to about 3,000 pounds. Doing so would lower the model’s barrier to certification and make it more accessible to pilots.

Personal eVTOL aircraft such as the H1-X are expected to hit the U.S. market before electric air taxis, which a handful of manufacturers intend to launch commercially in 2025. The smaller models may give Americans their first glimpse of eVTOL technology.

“The H1-X is not just a vehicle; it’s a leap towards a future where freedom of movement and sustainability coexist,” said Doron Merdinger, CEO of Doroni. “Our dedication to innovation, safety, and the environment is embodied in every aspect of the H1-X, marking a new chapter in transportation.”

Doroni called the H1-X’s unusual tandem wing configuration—which it claims will enhance lift and efficiency—a “leap in aerodynamic sophistication.” It includes integrated wing landing gear, with wing fences to manage airflow.

Another defining feature is the propulsion system. The aircraft receives its lift from four in-wing electric ducted fans, a technology also featured on the Lilium Jet. The fans are designed to reduce noise and improve flight efficiency while keeping the blades enclosed, making the H1-X suitable for urban environments.

Eight vertical electric motors—two each on the aircraft’s four wings—power the fans, enabling quiet and efficient vertical takeoff and landing without a runway. The company said the eVTOL could even land on driveways or roofs.

As two rear-mounted pusher propellers move the aircraft forward, its wings generate lift, conserving power and reducing the amount of lift thrust required from the fans. Doroni said it has patented the combination of tandem wings and electric ducted fans. It added that the design was inspired by jet fighters of the 1950s and 1960s, which blended different wing cambers and sweeps.

The aircraft can fly for about 40 minutes on a single charge, with the ability to charge fully in as little as 20 minutes. Battery packs will be swappable and compatible with standard electric ground vehicle chargers, similar to most eVTOL air taxi concepts.

Combined, the technologies aboard the H1-X give the aircraft a range of 60 sm (52 nm), top speed of 120 mph (104 knots), and payload capacity of 500 pounds, making it ideal for urban or semiurban commutes, Doroni said.

The aircraft was “designed to make flying as accessible as driving,” according to the company. The pilot controls the eVTOL using a single joystick, powering it on and initiating takeoff or landing with a single push of a button. Intuitive precision flight controls do the rest. To store it, owners require only the space of a two-car garage.

The aircraft comes with semiautonomous navigation as well as a self-stabilizing flight system, which is designed to keep the aircraft in equilibrium. Safety features include a built-in ballistic parachute and advanced anti-collision sensors that continuously monitor for obstacles.

The H1-X’s total takeoff weight of 1,850 pounds would qualify it as LSA under the FAA’s MOSAIC proposal, which would expand the definition of LSA to accommodate new aircraft types. Doroni last year said it would consider LSA certification for the H1, its “go-to-market aircraft” unveiled in 2021. It did not mention such plans for the H1-X, but it’s possible the manufacturer has similar intentions.

Doroni said its new model has the potential to transform not just personal travel but also logistics and support services. The company envisions a wide range of applications, including cargo delivery, emergency services, and military operations.

Doroni launched preorders for the go-to-market H1 in 2022. It announced it would accept 36 preorder reservations in the first year of production, “scaling slowly in order to ensure the highest level of quality and safety possible.” Customers will require a valid driver’s license and the completion of a 20-hour training course to fly the H1. The company anticipates the aircraft’s launch later this year.

The predecessor to the H1-X in July completed what Doroni said was the first test flight of a personal two-seat eVTOL in the U.S. It received FAA airworthiness certification in December, at which time the company said it had more than 370 preorders in its backlog.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Doroni Aerospace Unveils H1-X Personal ‘Flying Car’ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Yet as demonstrated by broad participation in art, music, or sport, individuals seek more than practical solutions. Sometimes the activities that inspire us most are those which free our minds and lift our spirits.

The aircraft in this portion of FLYING’s Buyers Guide this year might be called “joy machines,” for their mission is to elevate you—physically and emotionally.

Welcome to recreational—and, yes, affordable—aviation. To offer a taste of the 158 aircraft the FAA has accepted as special (fully built) light sport aircraft (LSA)—plus more than 100 kit-built models—I’ve divided the subject aircraft into several categories, with three outlined here. These aircraft are good representatives but between them account for just a small percentage of the models available.

Buyers enjoy many diverse choices, one of which might be perfect for them. I encourage you to explore the segment more fully at ByDanJohnson.com (to become AffordableAviation.com), now a member of the FLYING family.

Our Favorite LSA

Light sport aircraft have been part of the aviation firmament for almost 20 years, and over that time, some models established themselves even as newcomers regularly arrive. The way the FAA accepts (not “certifies”) these airplanes allows rapid improvement, which has stimulated surprisingly fast progress. What will happen as the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification’s (MOSAIC) recent rulemaking comes to conclusion looks like it will only serve to expand upon the grand variety and capability we witness on the market—such as expanding the envelope of the Bristell SLSA featured in our opening spread, and in the April 2023/Issue 936 edition of FLYING.

• READ MORE: We Fly: BRM Aero Bristell SLSA

The Evektor Harmony is a next-generation model following its SportStar, which will forever hold the title of the first special LSA accepted by the FAA in April 2005 only weeks after the new sport pilot/light sport aircraft regulation was released. Flight Design’s CT was accepted the same day.

Being first often conveys some advantage, but in an industry where new ideas often emerge, a successful producer cannot long rest on past achievements. Based in an aviation-rich area of the Czech Republic, Evektor steadily upgraded its SportStar through a series of alterations. Later, the company introduced the Harmony with added sophistication.

The Harmony uses a more advanced compound wing—the leading edge does not form a straight line—to bring performance up to the top of the category (restricted by present regulation, which may change with MOSAIC). Pilots who fly the Harmony say it feels like a legacy GA airplane.

The Jabiru J-230D, hailing from Australia, is the result of years of development, beginning long before light sport aircraft came along. When FAA’s rule hit in 2004, the Down Under designer and manufacturer was quick to adapt its kit products to the new market.

The J-230D resembles the company’s J-400, a four-seater. That many seats aren’t permitted on LSA, so out they came, leaving an aft interior bigger than a Cessna 150. A third door sized for people brings the easiest luggage area loading among LSA—you can easily take your pet along. Jabiru is a rare airframe manufacturer that also makes its own engine. When you hear the word “Jabiru” (a large bird), you need to think airplane and powerplant, though the engines are also used on other airframes. A J-230D with the 6-cylinder Jabiru 3300 can readily hit the top speed among LSA.

The 2020 FLYING Editors’ Choice Award-winning Texas Aircraft Colt relies on the great success of a predecessor Brazilian design, but the Colt is all American. One of the newer aircraft to the LSA fleet in the U.S., developers had the advantage of seeing what pilots were buying…and what they were requesting.

With its conventional yoke control, the Colt breaks a familiar mold in LSA, an overwhelming majority of which use joysticks in various forms. A refined aircraft, the Colt is beautifully appointed inside and out, attracting pilots seeking a legacy GA airplane look in a ground-up-new design that can be operated by a sport or higher-certificated pilot exercising the no-medical privileges of LSA.

Built in Hondo, Texas, with local support, the Colt joins the best of an experienced Brazilian aircraft designer with American airplane-building capability in the U.S.

Seaplane LSAs

Seaplanes quickly earn a special place in some aviators’ hearts because of their unique ability to land on water and for the versatility that amphibious gear affords. The FAA recognized this interest and allowed 110 pounds more gross weight for qualifying seaplanes and also permitted amphibious gear. With a water-going craft, you have vastly more places to make a landing, whether for a pleasant visit or an emergency.

From its first announcement, pilots could see ICON’s A5 LSA seaplane was something distinctive. Its hull and fuselage blended form and function to retract gear invisibly while providing stability on the water. When its wings were electrically folded, jaws dropped; many envisioned how to launch A5 at their local marina.

The California developer went on to a long development period where every detail was sussed out to an intricate degree. The resultant aircraft that emerged addressed FAA’s current counsel to industry: “Make these aircraft easy to fly, operate, and maintain.” Three checks for ICON engineers and company leadership. They forged ahead while maintaining the smooth lines of early prototypes.

By 2022, ICON rose to be one of the leading suppliers in the LSA industry, and those of us lucky enough to have operated its well-located controls quickly acquired large smiles. A5 is simple and responsive, stall resistant, and stable. The modern sports car cabin is comfortable and spacious. Amphibious gear makes the A5 versatile and puts America’s many waterways on the list of available landing areas.

Vickers Aircraft closely observed ICON after it made a big splash with the A5. Vickers, based in New Zealand, saw an opportunity to achieve even more with its Wave. And engineers took a different approach to creating it. Using modern CAD methods and software similar to Boeing or Lockheed Martin, Vickers worked for years before unveiling a product but, when it did, it flew “right out of the box.” The company remains in testing as it works toward FAA acceptance but believes it can swiftly move to manufacturing because of the detailed preparation work. Indeed, elements are already being produced. The Wave first tempted buyers with prices substantially below ICON’s eye-watering $394,000, although continued improvements and the latest engine from Rotax have pushed up its costs. All told, the Wave is an intriguing amphibian loaded with features and boasting a large interior complete with sliding doors.

Scoda Aeronautica’s Super Petrel started its life in France. It was much different before the team at Edra, now Scoda Aeronautica, took over in Brazil. Here’s another seaplane entry from the South American nation that is very big in aviation. The Super Petrel sets itself apart from all others with its biwing construction. You may not think that’s logical in the modern world, but the Super Petrel is a highly efficient aircraft. Plenty of wing area helps it leave the water faster. The shorter the water run, the less strain on an airframe. LSA seaplanes are masterful at this task, jumping off the water in a few seconds. The higher power-to-weight ratio helps, but Scoda wanted to go even further.

Scoda’s XP designation for the Super Petrel means extra performance, but you also get more airplane. The airframe was extended by 10 inches, bringing with it a bounty of benefits, including more luggage area. With Rotax’s 141 hp 915iS engine atop the center of gravity, Super Petrel leaps out of the water with great energy.

Niche Buys

The Airplane Factory’s Sling HW, or High Wing, is an all-new design clearly aimed at FAA’s coming MOSAIC regulation. A quick glance at the specifications below illustrates that Sling HW is well outside the current regulation for light sport aircraft. That’s OK for now. It can start with a kit or import a few aircraft in the experimental/exhibition category.

• READ MORE: We Break Down the State of MOSAIC By the Numbers

Numbers are bigger than for a present-day LSA, and that’s great if you seek extra capability. Be prepared to pay for it. Most MOSAIC-targeted LSA unveiled to date are often well into the $200,000s. Several exceed $300,000. Still, that’s much less than a comparable legacy GA aircraft, and Sling HW is big, comfortable, and well equipped. A sleek composite exterior helps it outperform comparable models.

These MOSAIC light sport aircraft (MLSA) are going to greatly expand the LSA range, and Sling producer TAF has long been an innovator.

It is also supremely confident in its designs and loves to demonstrate that by literally flying a new design all the way around the world. In fact, it has done so several times.

Kit-Built

Building your own aircraft involves much more than just saving money—just ask the experts at Van’s Aircraft, who offer both SLSA and kit versions of the RV-12. For most, it is a learning experience, a use of craftsmanship, or simply an absorbing hobby. When you’re done, you will know it in a way few pilots know their aircraft. You can also put in it precisely what you want.

Lockwood Aircraft’s AirCam is no light sport aircraft, but it might qualify as a MLSA. The AirCam has been such a hit that 200 have been built as kits. It looks somewhat unorthodox with its twin aft-mounted Rotax engines on a half-open-cockpit design, but you need to know why it looks this way.

The AirCam was custom designed and built for one job—taking National Geographic-grade cover story photos of Namibian jungles and African wildlife. The country’s terrain is utterly unforgiving. Clearings are few and small. The photographer, seated up front for photo missions, needs huge visibility and no obstructions. Plus, they wish to fly at the speed of nature, that is, slowly. The AirCam accomplishes all this like it was designed for it—because it was.

This story first appeared in the September 2023/Issue 941 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Here’s a Look at Some Affordable Aviation Favorites appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Now, yes, 20 years later, we’re just getting around to fixing those issues—and in a big, bold way. In fact, the GA industry reacted almost entirely positively to the recommendations published on the eve of EAA AirVenture last summer. The comment period—extended after the government shutdown last fall and buoyed by the appointment of the new FAA administrator, Michael Whitaker—closed Monday. As anticipated, the usual aviation associations weighed in, but with an interesting nuance. Normally, AOPA, GAMA, EAA, NBAA, and NATA either comment completely separately or as one, it seems—but in this instance, GAMA stood apart. It had to, as its membership could not be so neatly addressed by the usual consolidated effort. 

• READ MORE: Comments from Aviation Associations Take On Pros and Cons of MOSAIC 

You see, GAMA represents a broad swath of the general and business aviation manufacturing business—and its interests do not necessarily match those of the pilot and user groups behind AOPA and EAA, in particular, and to a lesser extent NBAA and NATA.

And what GAMA diverged on has definite repercussions for other certification-defining efforts in play—notably, those aircraft seeking approval under the advanced air mobility umbrella, by and large as a new breed of aircraft entirely, the eVTOL (electric vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft.

Change Is Hard

So, you’ve gotta ask yourself: What’s a bigger flex for the FAA and industry, MOSAIC or the certification basis for eVTOLs? A great number of which—if you read their various timelines and PR—are set to begin darkening the skies late this year and next? 

If we can’t flex the rules to allow for equivalent levels of safety in a four-seat, 250-knot, 3,325-pound “light sport aircraft”—defying the term, really, but so many of these are already in the field and some certificated under EASA—how can we come to grips with those that fly using completely new (read noncombustion) propulsion systems and simplified (read highly automated) flight control regimes? 

I contemplated this question as I piloted (in loose terms) a Corolla down the 405 freeway, paddling my way toward LAX for a painful x-c home last week after a trip to demo a new—yet-traditional Part 23—airplane for an upcoming pilot report. I looked around me at my fellow humans commanding four-seat SUVs of a similar weight to MOSAIC LSAs (a ton or so), inflicting varying degrees of terror upon the drivers around them. I thought, ‘Do I really want all of these [frickin’ idiots] barreling through the skies over the LA Basin alongside me in their personal eVTOLs?’ They can barely manage two dimensions, let alone three…and isn’t SoCal Center already saturated with its current level of traditional fixed-wing and rotor traffic? At least the gates at LAX are saturated, perpetually. Local communities are more in the business of closing airports—Santa Monica—as opposed to opening them, these days.

And therein lies the promise of the MOSAIC NPRM, as EAA and the other signatories have chosen to cautiously embrace it, that’s distinct from the next stage, which is the road map for eVTOL certification on a broad basis. As it stands, the recommendations outline solid, incremental yet meaningful improvements. They meet the SMART goal standard—“A” for achievable with what we know now, and flexible enough to accommodate the future. 

I understand GAMA’s reticence to push all of its member companies into the future, but then again, five of the seven most recently added GAMA members announced this week are involved directly in AAM. The embrace of this future is real, even among those OEMs who have been until recently concerned solely with developing aircraft under the existing certification paths.

One thing seems clear to me: If the FAA and industry can’t wrap its collective brain around the thoughtful progress made by the ASTM’s F37 committee on LSA and its constituents, there’s no way any of us will be in the mindset to bring on the AAM revolution. And with the pushback now coming to a head in the general public regarding self-assessment and oversight—thanks to the Boeing door plug debacle and its cascade of realizations—that internal oversight formed a compelling part of what kept LSA development in check in terms of cost.

And that would be a shame. ’Cause even though the thought gives me pause now, I have a feeling I’ll be ready to pay good money at some point in the not-too-distant future to engage with the masses soon to be zooming above the 405 rather than on it.

The post Can the FAA Flex? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

• READ MORE: What This MOSAIC Preview Means

MOSAIC is intended to broaden the scope of eligible aircraft while expanding performance and weight-based limits on the category. It’s considered a safety move by its proponents because it allows more margins of safety in aircraft available to those with so-called “driver’s license medicals” and more flexibility for creating new designs of light aircraft. The comment period for the NPRM ends Jan. 22. GAMA’s full statement to AVweb follows:

“The GAMA team is currently working across our broader membership to develop collective comments and recommendations in response to the FAA’s MOSAIC proposed rule which are due on January 22nd. Overall, GAMA supports the direction of key aspects of the proposal to increase the size, performance and scope of aircraft that can be flown by sport pilots and be issued a special airworthiness certificate with the objective of improving safety, functionality, innovation, and availability of small general aviation aircraft. However, there are areas of the proposal which go beyond what was expected and require additional clarification and justification from the FAA. In addition, GAMA believes the FAA misses a significantly important opportunity to fully realize the intended objectives and benefits of this proposal by not applying a consistent approach across all small aircraft airworthiness and certification processes. Our submission will go into further detail on these issues.”

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post GAMA Has Issues with MOSAIC appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

ICON says the certification will allow it to enter new markets, launching a “new phase of growth” for the company. Among other advantages, the new approval gives ICON a much clearer certification path in countries that don’t recognize the U.S. light sport category or those where the company would otherwise be required to go through a waiver process similar to the one it completed with the FAA to receive a weight exemption for the heavier-than-standard A5.

• READ MORE: Icon A5 Light-Sport Aircraft Review

The primary category certification also clears the way for the company to “take advantage of reciprocal agreements between the FAA and aviation governing bodies outside of the U.S.” to certify the A5 in regions and countries such as Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America.

“Receiving FAA type certification for the ICON A5 in the primary category is a testament to the dedication and hard work of the entire ICON team,” said company CEO Jerry Meyer. “It allows us to expand our market potential around the world, and it underscores the commitment of ICON Aircraft to innovation and excellence in design…We are grateful for the collaborative partnership with the FAA throughout this process, and we extend our sincere thanks for their commitment to safety and efficiency.”

About the A5

The two-seat ICON A5 Certified Edition offers a top speed of 95 knots, 427 nm range with a 45-minute reserve, and useful load of 430 pounds. The aircraft is powered by the fuel-injected Rotax 912iS engine and comes equipped with the Garmin aera 796. It also features a folding-wing design and whole-airframe parachute system.

ICON noted that the certified edition of the A5 has the same specifications and performance as the S-LSA version but will require a private pilot certificate and seaplane rating to operate in the U.S. The A5 S-LSA will continue to require a sport pilot certificate with a seaplane endorsement. Starting price for the certified version is $439,000 while the S-LSA model starts at $394,000.

According to the company, the primary difference between the two versions is that the “Type-certified A5 is produced under a production type certification under a higher level of scrutiny and documentation by the FAA.”

ICON began delivering the A5 to customers in 2017. The company reports that it has now shipped more than 210 A5s to clients across 13 countries. The model is manufactured at ICON’s facility in Tijuana, Mexico.

If you’re looking for an A5 of your own, consider entering The Ultimate FLYING Giveaway.

The post ICON A5 Receives FAA Primary Category Type Certification appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I don’t know about you, but I can guess that Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) fatigue is setting into a lot of quarters. Some pilots have done an extraordinary job of digging into the FAA’s 318-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) document to distill essential parts that need to be addressed. Many pilots get exhausted just looking at the NPRM.

Me too.

• READ MORE: How to Comment on a Proposed FAA Policy

MOSAIC has given us an inside look at how the FAA works. Many improvements resulted when the industry worked in harmony with government officials. Nonetheless, careful study found areas of concern in the NPRM. Recent articles in other publications hit essentially the same points as I did in my talk. Those points were partly my thinking, but I also relied on other experts to whom I had posed a variety of questions.

Still, some of the best commentary has come from non-experts—regular pilots who were concerned about a certain part of the NPRM and explored it thoroughly. With this in mind, I was keen to hear from my audiences at the Midwest LSA Expo 2023.

What follows represents my distillation of a number of questions that were asked in lengthy Q&A sessions following the two presentations. Several conversations developed between people in the audience, and therefore asking you to listen to all of that would not be engaging. I attempted to faithfully reproduce those questions and comments, and my responses, below.

• READ MORE: A MOSAIC Study Guide

Aircraft Descriptions

If my LSA has been restricted to 1,320 pounds to meet current regulation, will a pathway exist to use a higher weight if the aircraft has been appropriately tested?

The answer depends. If your aircraft is Experimental Amateur Built, you are the manufacturer and can change what you want. So if you want to fly on drivers license medical at a higher weight — so long as you clean stall at 54 knots or less — you can do so. On a Special LSA, the manufacturer will have to redeclare that they meet all applicable ASTM standards at the higher weight and could then start supplying aircraft with higher gross weights. However, that does not mean they will go backwards compatible and make all earlier aircraft so capable. A manufacturer would have no idea how the aircraft had been maintained or operated and they may not want to take on the added risk.

Some producers may not make aircraft specific to the U.S. market…

I agree, but many CAAs, especially in smaller countries, mirror FAA regulations closely. Since the U.S. aviation market remains the largest in the world, many producers cannot ignore American rules.

Will the FAA allow a sport pilot, perhaps by endorsement, to carry more than one passenger?

This represents a good place to urge your comment. If you believe a sport pilot, with added training and an endorsement, should be allowed to fly on a drivers license, say so.

What weight limit is applied to MOSAIC LSA?

No weight limit is specified. Instead, aircraft size is well governed by specifying clean stall at 54 knots. That is VS1 not VS0, clean—not flaps out. The purpose is to limit aircraft size and does not relate to slow flight or landing speeds.

Why the 54 knot clean stall? Why not with flaps?

Understand that the FAA’s point about a 54-knot clean stall is to provide a means of limiting the aircraft size. It works well for that, but this can also be easily defended by the pilot (show the FAA the POH) and verified by the FAA (by examining the POH). It’s a simple solution.

I fly a Beech Sundowner, a [Cessna] 172-like aircraft. The POH states a 62-knot clean stall. If I add vortex generators to it and lower the stall speed to 54 knots, will it qualify even though the POH will still say 62?

Since Sundowner is a Part 23 certified aircraft, it would require an STC to add anything to the airframe. At that time, a modification could be added to the POH but FAA officials in various places will not initially know how to handle this. The problem is, how do you know it stalls at 54 or less, and how do you defend it? The cost to demonstrate convincing evidence that stall is now lower than the POH states may be excessive.

• READ MORE: FAA’s MOSAIC Preview Has Major Implications for Helicopters, eVTOL

You referred in one slide to “high performance.” That term and “complex” are already defined in Part 61. If it has an adjustable prop, a 200 horsepower engine, and flaps, it is “high performance.” If it is retractable, it is “complex”, although it may not also be “high performance” (ex: a C-172 RG is complex but not high performance).

The FAA perceived a gap between LSA and Part 23 certified aircraft; they evidently see pilot certification similarly in discussing endorsements. While MOSAIC LSA gain many capabilities, sport pilots remain bound by other rules. It was not clarified how a sport pilot qualifies for “high performance” operations. We hope endorsements will suffice; they’ve worked well for 19 years of SP/LSA.

Will aircraft from other countries that have met other certification systems be accepted under MOSAIC?

The commenter refers to a government arrangement called “reciprocity” where one country accepts the methods of other countries. It comes as part of the Bilateral Safety Agreement. While the FAA will accept such approvals, they are still likely to assure an aircraft still meets every line item in ASTM standards for MOSAIC LSA.

Sport Pilot Privileges

If I already have retractable experience or night experience, can I use that as a sport pilot under MOSAIC?

You will have to get an endorsement, it appears, but any instructor who sees a lot of related recent experience in a logbook and flies with you for verification may be willing to endorse your logbook accordingly in short order. If you are not current with those skills, that person may recommend added training.

• READ MORE: Training Aircraft in Reach with FAA’s Proposed MOSAIC Rule

Is the reason for the medical requirement to fly at night related to color blindness?

The FAA did bring that up at EAA AirVenture 2023, saying that when the states give you a drivers license, they don’t adequately test for this. Personally, I find the argument weak to require pilots to pursue a medical over the relatively remote possibility that they might one day need a light signal from the control tower.

Couldn’t I just go to a doctor and only have my vision checked for color blindness?

That would make a worthy comment and would appear to address the FAA’s stated concern.

Will the opportunity to fly IFR be available to sport pilots without a medical?

Given the FAA’s attachment to medicals, that seems unlikely. However, the same response about the weak relationship between medical possession and aviation safety remains.

As pilots age, insurance companies want more frequent medical visits (even if the FAA may not). Will the insurance companies accept drivers license medical on MOSAIC LSA?

That’s a worthy question but not one about MOSAIC. Insurance companies are private and can require any evidence of medical fitness their contracts specify. They have accepted LSA use on drivers license medical and as I keep saying, no one has presented compelling evidence that possession of an aviation medical assures the flight is safer. What insurance companies do in the future is more a matter of the reinsurance market than an FAA regulation. At present, any pilot over 75  will find challenges getting insurance, regardless of that person’s health.

Have any parts of sport pilot flight instructor been changed?

That is not an area on which I am as well informed but, yes, I saw several references to SPIs. I urge you to use the USUA/LAMA study guide and use its search capability to look up that part more fully yourself. Then, please comment. 

Are you still saying that, assuming no change in the 90-day comment window, this will not go live until the end of 2024 or early 2025?

Yes, although an extension may be granted to a group of maintenance companies in which case the rule will be pushed back at least an additional 90 days.

• READ MORE: FAA’s MOSAIC Comment Window Is Soon Closing

If multi-engine is being allowed, how do you qualify for that?

This is another of those clues that this NPRM seems a bit rushed to market. FAA Aircraft Certification will permit multiple engines/motors, but the Flight Standards Group did not address pilot qualifications. A conventionally-acquired multi-engine rating is far less applicable today because designs include multiple electric motors, advanced computer controls, and many other technical capabilities the FAA never confronted.

What do you mean by “equal work” for powered parachutes or weight shift?

This refers to NPRM language that effectively discriminates against those aircraft types. A pilot cannot take advantage of the opportunity to use LSA for aerial work because a commercial pilot certificate is required and none is available for those aircraft types. They should have equal opportunity to perform aerial work; they may be perfectly suited to some tasks.

How fixed is the FAA on one passenger only? Could the agency be convinced otherwise?

First, the restriction is on the pilot not the aircraft. A private pilot with a medical could use a four-seat mLSA with four people on board, assuming weight and balance allows. Regarding the FAA’s flexibility on this, given its tight cling to medicals even though the evidence for them is weak, I suspect convincing the agency to let sport pilots fly three passengers is a long shot, but you can certainly comment if you have reasons to believe this is wrong.

What was the YouTube address for the MOSAIC Masterclass videos?

A series of videos may be found here.

Maintenance

Could you take two seats out of a six-seat legacy GA airplane, so it only has four, assuming it has a clean stall of 54 knots or less?

This is a “What if”-type question that can go on too long, but essentially if the aircraft has four seats and a clean stall of 54 knots, it can qualify to be flown by a pilot using sport pilot privileges, although only with two persons on board. In order to modify a Part 23-certified aircraft, however, you’d have to get a STC and your local FSDO or MIDO will not be up to speed on MOSAIC initially, so they may not understand the request.

Can a second owner of a LSA take a course to do maintenance on that aircraft?

This can happen today but some questions have been raised under MOSAIC. Rainbow Aviation expressed reason for concern on this. It is more expert on maintenance and I deferred to the company’s knowledge. 

It appears it will be more restrictive, will take more effort to get LSRM credentials. Any such action will reduce mechanics, already in short supply. Existing A&Ps don’t have enough experience or training on Rotax or Jabiru.

You appear to understand correctly. This is an area where I defer to those with greater knowledge so I have been recommending the Rainbow Aviation YouTube channel as it has been outspoken on this.

Are We About Done with MOSAIC?

Yes! Of course, I will continue to report on MOSAIC developments and news but now it is time for me to formulate my own comments to the FAA. I hope you found all the MOSAIC information useful. I hope you will comment.

The post MOSAIC Questions Linger in Light Sport Aircraft Community appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Recreational flying fans: I don’t know about you, but I’m getting pretty tired of studying MOSAIC [FAA’s Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification proposed regulation]. It’s been on my mind every day since the FAA issued it on July 24 just before EAA AirVenture Oshkosh started.

I’ve studied this pretty closely—thanks so much to Roy Beisswenger, founder and proprietor of Easy Flight, for his effort to make a study guide. This is not an easy read, but it has much we want plus a few things we question or want changed.

If you want some part changed, you have to comment. I can comment and many others have. That’s good, but the FAA needs a loud response. With 39 days left at posting time, 389 pilots have commented. Your comment is still needed.

The FAA’s comment period for the MOSAIC Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) will close on October  23.

A series of master class videos on MOSAIC may be found here.

To ensure my facts were as accurate as possible, I consulted several other experts, each focused on specific areas of interest.

Linked with my own experience — serving on the ASTM committee for many years, going to visit the FAA in its government offices in Washington, D.C. (several times), and discussions with the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA) board, plus numerous other aviation leaders—the video below provides the best information I can offer at this time. 

Is it a perfect understanding of all things MOSAIC? No, I keep uncovering new tidbits buried in this lengthy document. Others have often pointed out things I missed.

The video below provides as much detail as possible as quickly as possible in a form not too difficult to consume. It also draws attention to areas where people have found problems or have unresolved issues with what is presented. The video tries to illustrate these simply and clearly. I hope you’ll have a look.

Where Are the Comments?

If you get through all 45 minutes of the video presentation below, you will discover that the Q&A portion does not appear. This portion of our discussions went on nearly as long as the formal presentation. It simply got too long and took too much editing.

I was fascinated when during Q&A discussions erupted on their own. Being particularly passionate about a part of MOSAIC and our privilege to fly, attendees often spoke to one another without my input. This was invigorating to witness, but it was sometimes challenging to hear what people said, and not in every case could I keep up with the conversations. In short, I think you’d find it less useful than what I will present.

I am going through all of those comments carefully and will summarize them in printed form, which I think will be much easier to consume.

While I work on that, I encourage you to do what the video suggests: Go up to the search bar at the top of this page and type in MOSAIC. That will bring up everything I’ve written about the NPRM in chronological order. A few articles on Mosaic Light Sport Aircraft will be sprinkled among rule-oriented articles, but all have some useful information.

A few of those articles generated lots of comments. In fact, at the time I gave these two talks, this website had generated more total comments than the FAA’s website—a fact I hope will change dramatically in a new direction soon. I know people tend to wait until toward the end to act, but pilots shouldn’t cut the deadline too close.

If the FAA’s new rules are important to you, I urge you to watch this video. 

Helpful Links

• USUA/LAMA MOSAIC NPRM study guide, download a PDF document with bookmarks and helpful organization
• A MOSAIC study guide
• Make a comment, direct link to FAA’s comment page
• Read what other commenters have said, FAA comment page

The post FAA’s MOSAIC Comment Window Is Soon Closing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.